The law, 40 U.S.C. §8106, says that no building or structure MAY BE erected on any federal reservation, park, or public grounds in the District of Columbia without express authority from Congress.
The Trump Administration has demolished the White House’s East Wing and tried to build a ballroom on its ground without notifying Congress let alone getting its approval.
The National Trust for Historic Preservation sues the Administration to block its construction for lack of authority to do so without Congress’ approval, citing the above-mentioned U.S. Code.
To sue the Administration, the National Trust must have standing. That is the law of the land.
To have standing to sue as the representative of its members, to quote Chief Justice John Robersts’ dissent, an organization such as the National Trust must show, among other things, that one of its members, Alison K. Hoagland, historian, historic-preservation scholar, would have standing to sue in her own right.
To serve as the basis for her standing, Ms. Hoagland declares that she lives in Washington, D. C., and expects to visit the neighborhood around the White House about once a month. Having to view the finished ballroom the government is constructing would cause her to suffer injuries to her aesthetic, cultural, and historical interests because she finds the scale, height, and massing of the government’s design distasteful.
The majority of the Court does not find her declaration sufficient to constitute standing because mere offense, disagreement, or distaste does not qualify as a concrete and particularized injury. It therefore sides with the Administration and allows the lower court’s stay of the construction of the ballroom to be terminated.
The chief justice, John Roberts, a conservative judge himself, vehemently and totally disagrees. To say, he argues, that Ms. Hoagland’s injury is essentially: “I don’t like looking at the new building” is badly mischaracterizing her claim because Hoagland’s injury suffices for standing. A historic preservationist such as Hoagland can be aesthetically injured in a concrete, particularized way by the transformation of a historic building that she frequently enjoys.
He cites court case precedents such as an environmentalist can sustain a concrete, particularized aesthetic injury from the extinction of a particular animal or the transformation of a particular forest or river that he regularly enjoys.
He points out the irony of the majority’s decision, “With the Court’s rejection of Hoagland’s standing today, however, it now is the case that ‘I want to look at a crocodile’ can adequately answer the ever critical ‘what’s it to you?’ question of Article III standing, while ‘I want to look at the White House’ cannot – no matter how distinctive the particular viewer’s interest in looking at it may be.”
Once again, this Court does not care much about stare decisis (to stand by things decided) or precedents when they are presented with an inconvenience, in this case, the National Trust’s lawsuit to prevent the administration from changing the historic landscape of the White House Compound.
The Chief Justice’s discourse on the importance of the historic White House, “an iconic American building whose symbolism and history are wrapped up in its architecture” and why Ms. Hoagland’s standing to sue the Administration is on solid ground, is worth reading in full in his dissent.
The most striking statement in his dissent is the sentence, “That construction (of the ballroom) is likely unlawful”, citing the Code mentioned at the beginning of this article.
So, the majority skips that extremely important part of the lawsuit to dwell on the standing issue, even though their reasoning to dismiss Ms. Hoagland’s standing is shaky at best, to let the construction moving forward.
Why the Trump Administration is in a rush to tamper with historic landmarks in the Capital? To literally build a legacy with buildings to make up for meager political achievements?
Why this Supreme Court acts as if it were the Administration’s enabler?
Concerned citizen, “Officer, the arsonists are burning that building down.”
Lawman, “What’s it to you?”
Citizen, “Uh, it is unlawful …”
Lawman, “Move along and don’t bother them. You have no standing.”
Whatever way to look at the majority’s decision, it is not judicial but clearly political.
JOHN P. LE PHONG (This article appears on X, Facebook, and thelephongjournal.com)